Here is a good website about the Recovery Act and where the monies are going...http://www.recovery.gov
I found some interesting questions and answers on the website as well. Keep in mind this is a government website.
"Over the past year, the Recovery Board has received its share of gratuitous criticism (TGD: is there any other kind?) from some journalists and internet grouches. As the brickabts and internet grouches. As the brickbats flew, we've listened patiently. Time now to bury the most publicized urban legends about the Board and the Recovery Program."
Myth: The Recovery Board wasted $18 million to redesign Recovery.gov.
Recovery.gov is not just a pretty face and not nearly that expensive. In July 2009, after careful vetting, the Recovery Board and the General Services Administration selected a Maryland company, Smartronix, Inc., to develop our state-of-the art website. The project included redesign and construction of the website; installation of hardware and software infrastructure; hosting and operation for the website; enhanced content management; and contract labor support. To date, we have paid Smartronix $6.8 million. If we exercise all options in the contract, the bill could total $18 million by January 2014.
Yes, because $6.8 million is very reasonable.
Myth: Why is the Recovery program spending $250,000 per job?
How about $150,000 per job? Or, let’s say $500,000? Never mind that however you cut it, these cost estimates don’t actually begin to tell the whole story. Essentially, critics are dividing the number of estimated jobs by the amount of money spent in a Recovery project. So, if a highway construction project cost $10 million and created 100 jobs, the cost per job must be $100,000, or so the critics say. In a struggling economy, this kind of analysis no doubt angers many Americans. But any second year economics major could tell you how absurd this analysis is. What about the benefits of that highway project to motorists? What about the indirect jobs, the subcontractors and the suppliers that benefit? Like most other things in life, simple analysis doesn’t get the job done (no pun intended).
I wonder if Player wrote this.
Another good opinion piece:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162- ... 03983.html
Some choice quotes:
But when it came to presenting that data, Recovery.gov, the government's official site for stimulus information, highlighted one number in particular, posting it on the site's main page in large font: "JOBS CREATED/SAVED AS REPORTED BY FEDERAL CONTRACT RECIPIENTS: 30,383." To make extra certain of getting viewers' attention, the number itself appears in bright green.
Let's start with the 30,000 jobs themselves. The federal contracts in question represented $16 billion in stimulus spending. Assuming the number of created or saved jobs reported by each contract recipient was accurate—which, as we've reported before, is still an open question—that breaks down to $533,000 for each job. That's more than five times the projection of the president's own Council of Economic Advisers , which estimated in May that every $92,136 in government spending would create one job for one year.
So, if the $16 billion in federal stimulus contracts generated 30,383 direct jobs, how many indirect jobs were created or saved? We asked the White House, which told us they believe that for each direct job created or saved, there is one indirect job. Assuming that's right, that $16 billion created or saved some 60,000 jobs — which still clocks in at $267,000 per person.
I've spent some time looking for data showing how much money is made by the recipients' corporate officers, but so far no dice.